A primary error

[Bartholomew Jones]

Knowledge puffs up...

The fundamental error in science is this: if it can't be validated by science, you propagate your biases; for example, rejecting the deeds of Jesus, of Nazareth. Your ground for antichrist views is that science never validates; therefore you can strengthen what you please.

Knowledge puffs up. Love builds up.

 

[Snorrie]

It seems there is a methodology difference being raised here. Science via the scientific method is used to determine facts, make predictions, change/update facts, test/experiment, etc. it's all about our natural environment which is physical and the basis of understanding/living in reality. EG: A dead body is a fact. Whether that dead body is a H. Sapiens or an extraterrestrial or a "divinity" can be determined by the scientific method. Consequently, there is a dichotomy between fact and speculation. For many reasons, it seems that with science and speculation "Never the Twain shall meet". However, to each his own method of dealing with life is appropriate and very human.

 

[hellopunyhumans]

Knowledge puffs up...

The fundamental error in science is this: if it can't be validated by science, you propagate your biases; for example, rejecting the deeds of Jesus, of Nazareth. Your ground for antichrist views is that science never validates; therefore you can strengthen what you please.

Knowledge puffs up. Love builds up.

It could be validated by science if science found actual evidence that anything outside of the natural exists that has a provabl effect on that which science can measure, the natural.

 

[Bartholomew Jones]

It seems there is a methodology difference being raised here. Science via the scientific method is used to determine facts, make predictions, change/update facts, test/experiment, etc. it's all about our natural environment which is physical and the basis of understanding/living in reality. EG: A dead body is a fact. Whether that dead body is a H. Sapiens or an extraterrestrial or a "divinity" can be determined by the scientific method. Consequently, there is a dichotomy between fact and speculation. For many reasons, it seems that with science and speculation "Never the Twain shall meet". However, to each his own method of dealing with life is appropriate and very human.

The fact is, you accept historical records, without archeological remnants, if you like. You deny the historical record, if you don't like. If the record you like has archeological remnants, you use them as opposite straw men, to force your views against what you don't like. You've sabotaged what was a genuine science.

 

[hellopunyhumans]

The fact is, you accept historical records, without archeological remnants, if you like. You deny the historical record, if you don't like. If the record you like has archeological remnants, you use them as opposite straw men, to force your views against what you don't like. You've sabotaged what was a genuine science.

I accept that the bible is a historical document. No getting around that. It also has very tracable human origins like most mythologies. I accept all archeological evidence. Give me some that proves the " the deeds of Jesus, of Nazareth". I will happily defend my veiws on the origins of the bible, perhaps how it is an obvious mix of various mythos in that area. Many different conflicting versions of jesus exist and some were removed from the bible based on what people liked. The bible is much messier than most people think.

 

[Bartholomew Jones]

I accept that the bible is a historical document. No getting around that. It also has very tracable human origins like most mythologies. I accept all archeological evidence. Give me some that proves the " the deeds of Jesus, of Nazareth". I will happily defend my veiws on the origins of the bible, perhaps how it is an obvious mix of various mythos in that area. Many different conflicting versions of jesus exist and some were removed from the bible based on what people liked. The bible is much messier than most people think.

I don't really care about your views. I care about truth.

 

[hellopunyhumans]

I don't really care about your views. I care about truth.

And I belive my views to be the closest thing to the truth, because I have taken time to read the bible (the entire damn thing) and I have also been religious and athiest in my life so I have multiple standings I have learned from. What I consider to be the truth is everything there is evidence or reasonable assumptions supported by related evidence for. And If you want to debate or assume my position is defeated based on a strawman of scientific thought in your original post, feel free to, just know I will not be participating.

 

[Bartholomew Jones]

And I belive my views to be the closest thing to the truth, because I have taken time to read the bible (the entire damn thing) and I have also been religious and athiest in my life so I have multiple standings I have learned from. What I consider to be the truth is everything there is evidence or reasonable assumptions supported by related evidence for. And If you want to debate or assume my position is defeated based on a strawman of scientific thought in your original post, feel free to, just know I will not be participating.

I don't care how good of a reader you think you are, reading the bible through--with due care--takes place over a period of at least twenty years, not less

 

[hellopunyhumans]

I don't care how good of a reader you think you are, reading the bible through--with due care--takes place over a period of at least twenty years, not less

Twenty years? Really? What so I can find 4000 more contradictions?

 

[Bartholomew Jones]

Twenty years? Really? What so I can find 4000 more contradictions?

You'll always be a poor reader; and then you'll die. And then you'll be judged.

 

[hellopunyhumans]

You'll always be a poor reader; and then you'll die. And then you'll be judged.

Its not that long, even if you are annotating.

 

[JeetsN123]

I don't care how good of a reader you think you are, reading the bible through--with due care--takes place over a period of at least twenty years, not less

Twenty years sees like far too long just to read a book, albeit a large and important one. Measuring by words, it's three times the size of the 5th Harry Potter book, so maybe a week to read the whole thing if you are fast. Granted understanding the whole thing probably takes a few readings, so probably longer, but 20 years is too much.

 

[Hayseed]

How do you define knowledge? How do you define knowing? Would you call understanding the mathematical relationship of data, without knowing the underlying physical cause of that data relationship, knowledge?

For this is all we have for our knowledge. We have never had knowledge, only theory(guesses) of why the data is related. The only firm thing we have is the causeless relationship.

Just knowing that the understanding of the relationship of the data, will accomplish our goal, makes knowledge un-necessary. This is what I mean. We can take a non educated person, or a empty computer, and teach(program) them with math equations(rules) and component relationships, and then have them design electronic circuits. These circuits will work extremely well and preform our goals. But neither the person or the computer will have a clue as to what an electron is. Or why the electron moves the way it does....we just know is does. And the circuit will work and do it's job. And we call ourselves geniuses. We cheat, cause just doing the goal is enough, for success. We accept success for knowledge. Then brag about it. This is our methodology.

Our primary error is the same today as it has always been. Putting faith in the wrong thing. Science and math have NO knowledge authority. And because we have no knowledge, it's the only thing we have to use for success. Our ignorance has enslaved us.

Someone once said that trying the same thing over and over without success is insanity. I say it's the only advantage and success man has. Trial and error. Over and over.